Skip to main content

About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
to -- >> we are not going to cut the defense budget. >> no massive defense increase? how do you do that? >> a proposed $478 billion cut to defense. now we have another $500 billion cut defense that is working on the horizon. they insisted upon that being involved in the debt negotiations. >> no one wants that, but i want to know how you do the math. >> you do not cut the defense by a trillion dollars. we will cut 80,000 soldiers, 20,000 marines, 120 cargo planes. if these cuts go through, our navy will be the smallest it has been since before world war i. this invites weakness. do we believe in peace through strength? you bet we do. do not cut the military by a trillion dollars. not increase it by a trillion, do not cut it by a trillion. >> we do not cut it. this so-called automatic cut, that was part of the debt deal they asked for. let me tell you what my friend said at a press conference. we have been looking for this moment for a long time. >> can i tell you what that meant? >> the bipartisanship was what he voted for the automatic cuts in defense because they did not act. the milit
am an honorably discharged united states marine. i served in desert storm. i am a criminal defense attorney for 19 years. i started off my law firm in 2007 and i employ 11 full-time people at my firm. i know what it is like to run a small business. we have strayed far from the principles of limited government. our government taxes and spends out of control and our civil liberties are constantly under attack. we can fix it, but we need to get government back into its cagae. >> our final opening statement is from jeff flake. >> good to be here. two days ago, cheryl and i received a wonderful phone call from my son syan and forming as we are grandparents. aidan was born into a wonderful family, but he was born into $50,000 of debt. his share of the federal debt we all hold. that is why the stakes in this election are so high. we have to have somebody who understands fiscal discipline. that has been my record in the house of representatives, where i fought my own leadership on issues like earmarks. they punish me for it, but i kept at it and we do not have earmarks any more. that is th
process, could call for cuts for many defense related programs in massachusetts. if that happens, where would you stand for cuts to trim the deficit, or to prefer pentagon spending and jobs provided for the economy in massachusetts? >> great question. i am still serving in the national guard. i have been there in that capacity. and as a senator, making sure we to what is going on. the jobs are critical. we have a strong defense industry in massachusetts. we need to make sure we can protect them, as well. it will be a challenge. i worked on the first base closure when i was a state senator. i have been fighting and working now, meeting with the personnel. also, at the air force base. to make sure we provide them. as a ranking member of armed services and having the ability to meet with these people and get the information and battle in a consistent basis for them, i am looking forward to that opportunity. as you know, especially, they have a mission where their proficiency is so much better than the active forces, and to think we will put that in jeopardy because a political agenda, i wi
suggested if we went off the fiscal cliff and have the spending cuts in defense, that it would kill jobs in virginia. >> but that's where you need leadership from the top. and successful governors do two things well. they provide leadership and they propose bold initiatives to their legislatures and they also have a strategy or a blueprint for economic growth in their state for the future. those are the successful governors. we need the same type of leadership in the white house. >> no president has had reorganization authority since ronald reagan lost in the 1980's, when it expired. i think there needs to come back. i would put back some type of entitlement authority that was lost after the nixon era. the subcommittees in congress are not very good managers of certain things. so there has to be a combination. you cannot leave the size and structure of the government we have in place. this government functions on a 19th century organization model despite the availability of 21st century technology. everybody is automating everything and it's very slow. you look at the demographics of the
of defense, they know when we are attacked the border and we do not. we're going up the work together to protect the american public's we can stop cyber crime. it's a big deal. it's going to get worse. computers in 10 years will be 100,000 times faster. we're going to work on that in every way, shape, and form. banks are pretty good at this. we have been doing in a long time. we have to really stay in front of it. those of you who worry about it, it does not only come over the this -- the internet. think about when they join your company from the inside. that's where we're going to get. >> thank you for reassuring point. [laughter] the young lady in the second to last rolw. >> that is why you have fire walls to prevent everyone getting to all of these systems. >> many of the roles coming out of dodd frank have yet to be written. how much of an impact is this having under business? >> it the look at this quarter, we will release earnings on friday, it's pretty good. small business loans are up, 12 straight months. middle-market loans are up. market shares are up. trades have been ok. m
in the example of governor romney is suggesting that if we had spending cuts in defense, it would kill jobs in virginia. >> that is where you need leadership from the top. i will point back to the governors. successful governors do two things really well -- provide leadership and propose a bold initiatives to their legislatures. they also have a strategy or a blueprint, if you will, for economic growth for the future. those are the successful governors. >> no president has had the reorganization of authority since ronald reagan. it expired in the 1980's. i think that needs to come back. i would put back the authority lost after the nixon area -- era. there has got to be a combination. you cannot leave the size and the structure of the garment we have in place. this is a government functions on an old model despite a 20 per century technology model. it is painful and slow. look at the demographics of the federal work force. they are aging. attrition would take care of a lot of this, if it could be accompanied by risk management. president obama, the largest management he has -- he has run th
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)